I think the answer involves not changing any of the rules at all, but in officials exercising the good old fashioned "no call" a little more often.

Officials these days are too eager to blow their whistle just because there is an instance of contact or impact.

Another issue with the offensive foul / flopping debacle. Imagine this:

Scenario 1: Kobe Bryant is attacking the basket. He beats his man and runs straight at Chris Paul who is caught as the help guy inside. He runs into Paul en route to a layup, Paul falls over at the moment of contact because Kobe is bigger and stronger than him and Kobe is called for the charge.

Scenario 2: Kobe Bryant is attacking the basket. He beats his man and runs straight at Roy Hibbet who is the help guy inside. He runs straight into Hibbert with the same force as he attacked Chris Paul in Scenario 1, trying to attack the basket, but Hibbert doesn't move because he is fucking huge. His feet are set defensively and there is no hand foul. No call is made by the referee because Hibbert holds his ground and doesn't fall over.

How do you call these two scenarios correctly? A referee will never, ever call a charge if the defensive player doesn't fall over.

If Hibbert falls over in Scenario 2, he gets the charge call because the contact is real, he is in good defensive position and probably not going to get called for a blocking foul. If he doesn't fall over, Kobe runs into him and probably gets an off balance shot attempt off. Great defence, yes, but the shot could go in and if not the Lakers could still grab the offensive rebound.

A lot of the times a flop isn't to manufacture a call out of nothing (ie. the Patty Mills, Chris Paul style of flopping - the worst kind), but more to say "hey ref, my feet are set, my hands are straight up, and these guy barrelled straight into me. You'd have to have an accelerometer fitted to my torso to measure the force of impact, so I'll demonstrate it to you by not holding any ground whatsoever and allowing the offensive player's impact to push me backwards at great speed".

What do we do about this aspect of the flopping situation? I honestly don't know.

I see you're point anonymous, however, an elimination playoff game could have repercussions for the next series, so on and so forth. Its just a bunch of hypotheticals, imagine a referee T's up a player for a flop when there was in fact legitimate contact in a playoff elimination game. A free throw and possession could be the difference too.

Another good point raised Mick and one I don't really have the answer for. In most circumstances I'd imagine that if the forceful contact is there on a charge call, Hibbert, in scenario 2 wouldn't be seen to be flopping. When taking a charge you usually prepare yourself to fall and take the hit. If Hibbert did that and fell I'm not sure it would look like he's flopping.

This is where I feel the system works. The Panel could accommodate the points you've made Mick and the charge could just be thrown out. If a technical foul was issued on the spot, thats when it gets tricky.

I'm with you Mick - show me the last time anybody had a charge called whent eh defensive player didnt hit the ground (that's not counting the old extending the off-forearm on the dribble).

The solution is simple in theory. Have the referees instructed to reward good defense maore and penalisepoor defense more. The trouble is in going through the teething period which it would inevitably take to have the players adjust.

I love the defensive aspect of the game and by rewarding both good and bad D you'll get better games. More incentive to play good D because its going to be rewarded and more opportunities to demonstrate your offensive prowess because you will be impeded less by the niggly leaning and hand-checking we get now which substitues for defense.

Agree, ankles - it's the intent and the causing the contact that matters, not the actual result.

While we're at it, let's also get rid of the wrestling matches in the post position, and some of the deliberate running-through the defender - makes a joke out of the claim that bb is a 'non-contact' sport.

One point that I think is pivotal to this debate was alluded to by AK-47: "2. The league must then release a detailed explanation of what is regarded as flopping..."

There's no absolute consensus as to what constitutes 'flopping'. I doubt there would be very few taking the stance that all forms of flopping are non-issues and don't require addressing; most are generally against any form of deceitful play or flagrant exaggeration, or in between the two ends of the spectrum.

IMO the only level of flopping that NEEDS to be addressed in-game is when a player feigns contact when none actually occurred. This is less of a judgement call for the referees, as it's pretty obvious to anyone who has the proper viewpoint.

Anything else should be left to a a match review panel. Determining if a player flagrantly exaggerates contact when contact is actually made, is too much pressure to put on referees in real-time.

E.g(1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTdERYOtqsg
If a referee had the camera angle of the latter part of the clip: tech Davis on the spot. Leave the match review panel to fine and suspend him ala Leroy Jetta.

E.g(2) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEx4JUDeyAQ
Very difficult to determine in real-time, but an obvious flop on replay. If the ref noticed the flop in real-time, they should allow play to continue since the offense has the advantage as a result. Again, leave it to the match review panel to fine and suspend Kirilenko.

E.g(3) A defender is legally set to take a charge outside the restricted area, and the makes minimal, but clear contact with the defender who falls as a result of anticipating the charge in conjunction with the (minimal) contact.
-No blocking foul should be given since the defender was legally set.
-If it wasn't clearly a charge, then let play continue.

As a player and coach, I HATE when it came to a charge and refs would feel they had to make a call and ended up guessing when they were out-of-position or ignorant of the rules. This happens so often, despite when questionable fouls made against the defense results in the ball spilling out of court, the ball automatically goes to the offense. If there's a foul: call it. If unsure, don't guess: let play continue as if the foul didn't occur i.e. ball goes out off the offense, it's defense's ball. But i digress...

The NBA has the capacity to review play from multiple camera angles, and with precision - as seen when they check for feet in/outside of charge circle, behind the three-point-line etc. Not sure about the NBL.

Implement a highly retrospectively-enforced penalty system and there's few risks attached, but I would argue still addresses the majority of the burning issues regarding flopping. Make it more difficult and less beneficial for the players to fool the refs and less will attempt to do so.

Honestly, how many professional athletes of any sport are smart in how they go about deceiving refs? Very, VERY few. In the vast majority cases, I'm certain that a conservative approach would be very effective. Better than nothing at all, right?

"Viagra"

the original problem was that you didnt get the call unless you DID hit the ground, even on a ligit charge.
as usual these things do a complete circle before they get sorted again.

refs...unless there is real contact to a defenders chest (that has legal position) dont call the fucking foul.

What Skull said.

Solve this one and you can also solve the 'holding the ball' rule in AFL!

Seriously, Viagra could be an option??

Then again, common sense refereeing..........

Naahhh, go the 'Viagra'! Safer bet....